MLK’S
FALSE GOSPEL
I
considered presenting the following material around Martin Luther King (MLK)
Day in January but chose instead to wait because I did not want to overshadow,
to my listeners, the great social-justice work Dr. King accomplished. Today,
however, I will discuss the false gospel which MLK preached citing specific
examples and even questioning his personal salvation.[1] My issues with MLK
surround his opposition to central tenets of the Christian faith, as is the
case with many other solid Christian theologians and pastors who are familiar
with his work. I openly admit that I am no scholar on the work of Dr. King;
nor, have I exhaustively examined his work. I have, however, read and heard
enough of his work and teachings to understand that he taught a false gospel,
which is, in fact, the antithesis of the gospel of Jesus Christ aside from his
stances on social-justice issues, particularly the wrongness of racism.
I suggest that
MLK was wrong on the gospel in four chief areas: the authority of Scripture,
the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the virgin birth, and the
resurrection of Jesus. Given that these areas are indispensable to the
Christian faith, I dare suggest that it is impossible to be a Christian without
a fervent belief in these key orthodox doctrines. My intention here is not to
defame Dr. King but surely to criticize the false gospel he preached[2] with the hope that
Christians will know and understand his message compared to the message of
Jesus Christ. As people discover the false gospel MLK preached examined next to
what Jesus Christ preached, an abundantly apparent contrast becomes clear.
The Authority of Scripture
MLK
diverts from orthodox Christian doctrine with his view of Scripture’s
authority. King plagiarized about a quarter of his Boston University PhD
dissertation; yet, his work was seen to still contribute to his field. It
certainly has done such but (I believe) negatively. The church, since her early
days, has affirmed the authority of Scripture. Certainly, there have been
debates over the centuries as to which texts should be canonized; the Bible we
have now, however, represents the toil of that process and, about twenty
centuries later, is the completion of the canon of Scripture.
MLK
blatantly denies the authority of the Bible. One of his scholarly papers
entitled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian
Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the
Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection” suggests so in the title alone, i.e.
experiences dictate essential Christian doctrines rather than the Bible. King
says:
But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines,
and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they
are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all
degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philosophically
untenable,[3] yet we can never undermine
the foundation on which they are based.[4]
In King’s “Sources of Fundamentalism
and Liberalism,” the Garden of Eden is presented as a myth. King even says that
“doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the
substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are
all quite prominent in fundamentalist thinking”[5]
as he scorns those who ascribe to such doctrines.
The Apostle
Paul says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received
the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of
men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you
believers.” (1 Thess 2:13). In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says:
…Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the
Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever
relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the
same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and
teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:17-19).
Further, even Jesus himself says, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If he called
them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the
world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’”
(John 10:34-36)? These passages (among others) speak to the authority of the
Bible, which is the word of God. Surely, the Bible is derived from Jesus, i.e.
he is not derived from the Bible; yet, if one claims to be a Christian but
denies the authority of Scripture, what purpose do they accomplish? The church,
for centuries, has ascribed the authority of the Bible in unequivocal terms.
MLK did not do this, which led to certain blatant heresies in his teaching.
The Deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God
Likely
because of Dr. King’s denial of the authority of Scripture, his faith (or lack
thereof) was seemingly placed in human ability and intellect, which (Scripture
is clear) does not save. Stemming from MLK’s denial of Scripture’s authenticity
and authority are three underpinning heresies in his theology. First, King
denied Jesus Christ’s deity as the Son of God. In the same paper as previously
mentioned, King says:
The first doctrine of our
discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great
process of development… How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into
being… I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical
minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of
subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical?… And so in
order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him…the
church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later
under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.”[6]
Moreover, of the sonship of Jesus, King states, “…the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is
found wanting.”[7]
The Gospel of John is replete with Jesus’ own references to his deity and
status as the Son of God (4:10, 5:19, and 5:26 among others) in addition to
numerous biblical passages which explicitly state or allude to Jesus’ deity as
the second person of the Godhead.
King, in his paper, “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus”
suggests that deity is not part of Christ’s inherent
nature but was rather granted to him later. “It
was his felling of absolute dependence on God…that made him divine.”[8]
Such is the problem with considering Jesus both fully God and fully man: fully
infers quantity; yet, Jesus is both God and man by his nature, i.e. neither was
bestowed upon him. Thus, it is more accurate to say that Jesus is truly God and
truly man.
In another paper, King says:
It is not at all
surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that
when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen
Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and
that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through
whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had.[9]
Here King essentially furthers his claim that Jesus’ deity
and status as God exists as a mere tale among early Christians, a tale which
was used to present another option in a polytheistic society.
To
disbelieve that Jesus is God and that he is the Son of God is to disbelieve
Jesus himself and, thus, to discredit the fact that he is the only way. Early
Christians surely understood that Jesus is God and is, in fact, the Son of God.
MLK, in making these statements goes against
centuries of orthodox Christianity, history, the Bible, and even the words of
Jesus himself. In this regard, Dr. King is stubbornly wrong on the gospel.
The Virgin Birth
Yet
another protruding error in MLK’s theology is his denial of the virgin birth.
In recent years, a popular American pastor said that it is more important to
believe in the resurrection than the virgin birth. This, however, is a false
narrative, for if the virgin birth did not occur, Jesus was conceived and born
in sin just as any other human and, therefore, not an unblemished atonement for
the remission of sin. Moreover, because the Bible says in unequivocal terms
that Jesus was born of a virgin, one must believe it.
Dr.
King suggests that “the word, virgin, is not
found in the Hebrew original but only in the Greek text, which is a
mistranslation of the Hebrew word for ‘young woman.’”[10]
“First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is
too shallow to convince any objective thinker,”[11]
says King. He continues:
A more adequate
explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the
early Christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness
of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was
to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness
could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not
unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific.
They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought
patterns of their day.[12]
Dr. King
diverted horribly from the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith here. Not
only did early Christians testify to the truth of the virgin birth, believers
throughout the centuries have held to this doctrine as necessary and
inarguable. Further, most Christian scholars do not question the legitimacy of
the Greek translation of the word, virgin. It is surely accurate and
trustworthy. If Dr. King did not believe in the virgin birth, as inferred in
his writing, he did not trust a stalwart portion of the gospel. MLK greatly
erred in his theology regarding the virgin birth.
The Resurrection of Jesus
Of
all doctrines to question, MLK perhaps questioned the one most central to the
Christian faith: namely the resurrection of Jesus. King states:
From a literary,
historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many
questions. In fact, the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine
is found wanting… What
experiences of early Christians led to the formulation of the doctrine?… The root of our inquiry is found in
the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been
captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led
to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern
of the first century, this inner faith took outward form.[13]
King
here not only questions the resurrection but effectively and blatantly denies
its reality. In fact, Dr. King suggests the resurrection to be a mere theory
which was born of and formed from experiences and thought. Never mind that fact
that Jesus walked the earth for forty days after his resurrection and appeared
to his disciples and to over five-hundred witnesses before his ascension, MLK
suggests the resurrection to be a sort of comfort mechanism for people who are
easily swayed and weak of the mind. The fallacy of Dr. King’s theology here
cannot be excused.
A
Flawed Man Who Did Good Work but (Probably) Did Not Have a Relationship with
Christ
Many do not like to discuss the fallacies
of Dr. Martin Luther King. He did tremendous work in the area of
social-justice. Nonetheless, the gospel he taught, according to his own
writings, is a false gospel. Dr. King, in fact, seemingly equates Christianity
(and Jesus) to any other form of what might be considered a noble religion or
religious leader. Scripture is clear that Jesus is the only way; he is not the
same as any other religious leader; and Christianity is no manmade religion. If
King continued to believe his own false suggestions, while no one knows the
innerworkings of his heart, it is right to question whether he had a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ. I do not deny God’s
power to save someone upon their death bed. I do not know what happened to Dr.
King before he passed; yet, I know what he taught and believed based on his
writings. Lest we deceive ourselves, Dr. King’s gospel is not the true gospel.
[1] It is not wrong to question one’s salvation insofar
as he or she gives little evidence of a genuine Christian faith in their
teachings and expressions of core and fundamental Christian doctrines and
tenets of the faith. One might believe it is wrong to do so because of Jesus’
command not to judge (Matt 7); yet, in calling a person out for judgment, a
judgment is also being made then and there. Judgments are not strictly
forbidden but rather should be done in light of one’s own shortcomings. Here
then is a proper judgment of Dr. King.
Footnotes here will reference specific citations of
Dr. King’s work; yet, online sources were utilized; thus, page numbers will not
be given.
[2] In Christianity, criticisms are right, for believers
grow through loving critique, but should be employed in love and respect for
the purpose of edification.
[3] Webster’s: cannot be held, defended, or maintained.
[4] Martin Luther King, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century
Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin
Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.”
It should be noted that this paper is easily findable
through a variety of sources including those online.
[5] King, “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism.”
[6] King, “What Experiences of Christians Living…”
[7] Ibid.
[8] King, “The
Humanity and Divinity of Jesus.”
[9] King, “A Study of Mithraism.”
[10] King, “What Experiences of Christians…”
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
